68
strategies and a long process of planning are the challenges of implementing the Library 2.0 model. The issue of younger and older generations was pointed out too in the discussion above. Age was seen by some respondents as a potential stumbling block. As one respondent put it, “it’s not easy for us to officially adopt Facebook as one of the ways of communicating with students, because some of us are old and seem to not understand how Facebook operates and others are just anti-Facebook people.” This statement was re-enforced when a cross- tabulation of respondents’ Web 2.0 tools familiarity with age was made. The results show that most of respondents, who were less familiar with technologies, were those who were over the age of 50 years. Thus the age group of librarians is another factor that could negatively impact on the implementation and performance of the Library 2.0 model within UKZN libraries.
Despite the current and potential problems associated with the implementation of the Library 2.0 model in UKZN libraries, the benefits will still be greater if UKZN libraries continue offering a relevant, timely and efficient service to users through the full implementation and use of the model.
69
librarians themselves. When management respondents were asked to explain the reasons for not fully implementing these technologies and whether they were planning to implement other Web 2.0 technologies, the majority three (60%) stated that there was no plan to implement any other Web 2.0 technology anytime soon, since they were still working on the existing ones. As the Library Director put it, “It difficult for us to implement more Web 2.0 tools in our library services while we haven't yet mastered the ones we have.” All the respondents were of the opinions that, overall, UKZN libraries have responded, in terms of their services offered, to the developments in technology even though the full implementation of Library 2.0 was slow. Based on services that are already initiated by UKZN libraries such as online databases, e-books, electronic services (e-mail and text messages), social networking (Facebook) and the weblog, outside campus service and operation time extension during exams periods, respondents were of the opinion that the UKZN libraries were on track with technological developments but acknowledged, as noted above, its slow pace.
In terms of the slow adoption of new technology, Pienaar (2006) argues that the slow uptake of new innovations including Web 2.0 technologies by academic clients and library staff obstruct new and improved services. Ngcobo (2010) supports Pienaar, and according to her, UKZN Libraries’ inability to fully utilise Web 2.0 technologies to reach their clients has stilted the institution’s growth and visibility globally.
5.3.2. What are the current and potential benefits of implementing the Library 2.0 model within UKZN libraries?
Before asking about the potential benefits of implementing the Library 2.0 model within UKZN libraries, respondents were first asked to explain what could be done to keep up with the changing needs of UKZN library users and to reach new users. The following are the suggestions put forward by the UKZN library management: a survey on users’ needs should be done at least once every three years; suggestion boxes should be placed at the entrances of each library; remote access needs to be fully implemented because users prefer to learn from their homes; to be in tune with users wants; to be in contact with all academic staff in order to know which books are in need; and internal reviews need to be done to get staff opinions on what could be done in order to keep up with user needs.
The current and potential benefits of implementing the Library 2.0 model within UKZN libraries were highlighted by the management. It is interesting to note that most respondents
70
(80%) emphasised that meeting users in their space using new technologies such as social networking, and publicity in order to inform the users what the library has, are the keys to keeping up with the changing needs of library users and to reach new users.
There was little difference between the responses given by library management and the responses given by the subject librarians on the current and potential benefits of implementing Library 2.0 within UKZN libraries. Both groups of respondents came up with similar responses except for the issue of making the library part of the users’ world and marketing what the library has to offer which were emphasised more by library management.
All the arguments given by the respondents about the potential benefits of implementing the Library 2.0 model, were supported by the literature, for instance, Kwanya (2010) pointed out that, one of the benefits of Library 2.0 is its potential to create a library platform on which users can develop and control their own library experience at their own time and at the point of need. Casey and Savastinuk (2007:77) are of opinion that “the ability of reaching out to new users without losing those we already have” is another potential benefit of Library 2.0.
Based on these findings, one can assume that UKZN library management are aware of the current and potential benefits of the Library 2.0 model.
5.3.3. What are the challenges that can prevent the UKZN libraries from fully implementing the Library 2.0 model?
Responses of library management in terms of the challenges that can prevent the UKZN libraries from fully implementing the Library 2.0 model also differed little from those of the subject librarians. Like the subject librarians, management pointed out that cost, updating, infrastructure, time constraints, lack of training, and staff unfamiliarity with Web 2.0 technologies were the challenges that could prevent the UKZN libraries from fully implementing the Library 2.0 model. It is important to note that the cost variable was more emphasised by library management. All management respondents stated that, for now, UKZN libraries cannot afford to employ permanent staff to administer these tools on a 24 hour basis.
As stated by one of the campus librarians, “We acknowledge that the Library 2.0 model is very important, but for now we cannot afford to employ a permanent person just to monitor these technologies.”
71